Monday, April 27, 2015

Homosexual Hotel Owner Apologizes For Hosting Ted Cruz Event

"It was a terrible mistake" he says and he claims that he's "shaken to the bone"...

(NY Times) Ian Reisner, surveying one of his New York properties in 2010,
apologized for hosting an event last week for Senator Ted Cruz.Credit Nicole
Bengiveno/The New York Times

Ian Reisner, one of the two gay hoteliers facing boycott calls for hosting an
event for Senator Ted Cruz, who is adamantly opposed to same-sex marriage,
apologized to the gay community for showing “poor judgment.”

Mr. Reisner put the apology on Facebook, where a page calling for a boycott of
his properties, the gay-friendly Out NYC hotel and his Fire Island Pines
holdings, had gotten more than 8,200 "likes" by Sunday evening...

57 comments:

Now If a Conservative own the Hotel and refused to host a gay fund raiser . The gays would boycott the Business , and force it to shut down . So if a Gay hotel owner refuses a Conservative to have a fund raiser , should they be allowed to stay in business or be forced out of business ,like the gays did to that Pizza owner .

I Al Sharpton show his ass up in my town to agitate the crowds into rioting , I would arrest Al Sharpton . He would be charged lock up as long as I could hold him before he went in front of a Judge . I also would drag it out as long as I legally could before I allowed him to bail out .

This is nothing but the Marxist Gay Agenda to create class conflict. The Marxists are exploiting gays for their class war agenda to split Americans apart on every possible issue. The more publicity the better the propaganda.

These people supporting Bush will lose , the Republicans want a Conservative . Bush is not a Conservative ,only in name . He is for Obama Common Core , and Illegal Immigration . We will never vote for him , I would rather sit out a election ,than to vote for Bush or Hillary .

Hillary better not allow Reid to find out she has been taking money from the Koch brothers . Reid has been crying about the Koch Brothers for years . I am sure Reid even got money from them too . Liberals are always for something before they are against it .

this isn't even a picture of Russellville. Those buildings are not in my city! And you brought people from out of town to speak and sing, we were all locals and outnumbered you 3:1. There was no stage to rush, you were on the steps of our courthouse, public property. If we were only 2% then you were .02% Russellville showed it's true colors last Saturday, and muffled the Tea Party's voice of intolerance.

I was there. Live, in person. There was no stage, the speaker was positioned on the steps of the county courthouse, which belongs to the taxpaying citizens of Pope County. The speaker is from another state. None of the "radical homosexual activists" intruded on the space the speakers were actively using, some of them gathered at the base of the steps. The Russellville Police Department did a wonderful job of controlling traffic, crowd control, and being courteous and professional to all.

I live in russellville, that picture has nothing to do with it and not a single person in that picture are from russellville, this story is dubiously framed.

ALSO

in response to the passage: "But same-sex marriage advocates don’t only want the right to marry – they want to take away our rights in the process…They stand proudly for same-sex marriage, but dare anyone to disagree. If you believe in traditional marriage then they want to fine you, jail you, and taunt you."

How does allowing two men to marry infringe on anyone's rights? LGBT people do NOT want to fine people for believing in traditional marriage, we just see that their definition of "traditional marriage" has less to do with tradition and more to do with being less inclusive. People who shout traditional marriage aren't worried so much about if they can marry or not, they're worried about "those gays" sharing their space, which is what this is all about and is really whats going to happen whether they like it or not, because it is just that it happens, no fining necessary.

We're fine with heterosexuals existing, thats hardly a problem dude? It's about the right for two people who love eachother to do something as simple as hold hands without getting beat over the head by civilians, or worst killed, Or in the very least not having to worry about shit like that.

Except that this article is largely inaccurate? Take it from someone who actually lives here, the lgbt community was very respectful for the most part and hardly like this article describes, the photo they used is from Russia even! Read their shirts!

Of course you have to fine with heterosexuals existing, otherwise you wouldn't be on this earth. Dah! But homosexuality is not equal to heterosexuality simple because your existence was dependent on a heterosexual event, NOT a homosexual event. So clearly homosexual relationships are by Nature non-essential, and therefore there is no need for society to recognize it on equal par with a heterosexual relationship. Marriage was but one way in which society has recognized heterosexual relationships as essential to the survival of mankind. Get over it, you are by Nature a non-essential part of society!

Alright but if you change your mind let me know, I'm also an ex-christian, I was a christ follower for 15 years of my life but I've found it doesnt work for me, I am agnostic now until realized otherwise. What I mean to say is that I felt like I've done plenty of talking with God if you can call it that, wrestling with my feelings and internal decisions, I definitely was remorseful for a long time, so it's unfair of you to call me that Dave.

Who knows, might try hitting God up again sometime, but if you decide you do want to have a mature adult conversation with one of the actual people you're slamming, just let me know and I'll drop my number. Maybe we can come to a better understanding of the situation at large both ways.

I dont get what point you're trying to get at? Homosexual relations are non-essential? Love and committed marriages are not essential for procreation either, just sex, should all marriage be removed since it's not essential?

I mean, yes I do have respect for heterosexual marriiages for giving me the chance to exist, I'm not trying to deny that like you're acting like I am? I'm happy those exist but honestly I and some opposite sex person could chose to have a one night stand just for having a kid's sake and I still wouldnt have to stay in a committed heterosexual relationship, heterosexuality isnt really essential Easton.

Also, by your logic, the elderly who are non-essential should be gotten rid of, as also should the infertile, are you saying that the only way to be essential is if you can knock someone up or be knocked up yourself? THat's kind of bad logic do you not think?

Idk, you're preaching logic but your own logic is really narrow in scope, I'm sorry if that offends you, but you'll just have to get over it, your logic, by nature is essentially bad :/

I have lived in Russellville my whole life and I'd love someone to point out where that building is, lol its sad you have to make up stuff to justify your side. We were all well behaved and no one yelled anything inappropriate. "Love is love." If you call yelling that disrespectful then I suggest you reread that bible you try so hard to correlate with the American Constitution. And yes there were a lot of younger people in the crowd verses the 30 older people on the traditional side. What does that tell you? Things are changing and soon our generation will make sense of this equality issue. Stop playing God and let the people who want to enjoy life do so.

Where is the IRS , Al Sharpton is a Racist , Tax Cheat , Has he ever paid any Taxes ,, If he were white he would be in Prison , but Obama has him over to White Mosque to make more Plans on Destroying a Great Nation!

It's a shame that Mr. Reisner caved into bullies that want their own way regardless of how some one else feels. These thugs are akin to the Nazi's of Germany that killed anyone that was different than them or their fruit cake leader, Hitler! Gays said they would boycott the hotel and shut it down? I wonder how many of them have ever been inside much-less stayed there!

Sorry...my logic stands the test of time. You admitted you have to have a heterosexual relationship, even if for one night to produce the next generation. And you fully know that all the homosexual relationships will never produce the next generation. Therefore, homosexual activity is non-essential..it doesn't get any simpler than that. Marriage between one man and one woman represents a heterosexual union, an study after study shows a stable marriage of the natural biological parents provides the best environment to raise the next generation. That is one of the primary reasons society for thousands of years has defined marriage of one man and one woman; it represent a heterosexual relationship required to produce the next generation, and simultaneously provides the best environment to raise the children. There is nothing in a homosexual relationship that provides both, and therefore it is unnecessary for society to honor homosexual unions as a marriage. Plain and Simple!

man i am FINE with admitting heterosexual sex is worthwhile, infact Ill repeat it a few times for you so you can stop acting like a pompous ass about it? heterosexual sex is worthwhile,heterosexual sex is worthwhile,heterosexual sex is worthwhile,heterosexual sex is worthwhile,heterosexual sex is worthwhile,heterosexual sex is worthwhile,heterosexual sex is worthwhile,heterosexual sex is worthwhile,heterosexual sex is worthwhile,heterosexual sex is worthwhile,heterosexual sex is worthwhile,

But while we're at that, why is heterosex even essential? I mean, why is survival essential ? Hah, that is getting into some deep waters, are humans only important because we say we are? If a gay falls in the forest, do they make a sound? hmm

Anyway,Now that this is out of the way, You didnt even address my question about the elderly or the sexually infertile, you also didnt address my point where I mentioned that heterosexual "Relationships" are non-essential" also you quote studies without backing it up

How has your logic stood the test of time when it fell to me in less then 7 minutes from the time you posted it?

Maybe that is what happened to the dinosaurs, they all became homosexual...and perished from existence. That is what homosexuality would do. Of course the world would continue to rotate, the sun would come up for all the other animals on earth. Let me repeat:Homosexuality is worthless; Homosexuality is worthless; Homosexuality is worthless; Homosexuality is worthless; Homosexuality is worthless; Homosexuality is worthless;whereas;Heterosexuality is essential; Heterosexuality is essential; Heterosexuality is essential;to the survival of the human specie.

Woah. I personally am a Christian. I love Jesus. I even work in the missionary field, and I found what you just wrote appalling. I am by no means questioning your faith or your love for Jesus, but I am questioning the way you're presenting Jesus to others. All of His chosen people were sinners. Thieves, adulterers, and people that betrayed him, but he still pursued them with love, even knowing who they really were. Christianity isn't about one sin being worse than another and right and wrong. Christianity is about Jesus. And Jesus IS love. Therefor you need to be love, not hate. Not prejudice. And not someone that refuses to speak to someone because of what you believe is their unwillingness to have remorse for their "sinful ways." You're not on this earth to speak against sinners, you're on this earth to love them as fiercely as you can because after all, you're one yourself.

The difference is that I confess my sins and ask for forgiveness! You can't be remorseful when you consider your sins not to be sins - that's the difference! Oh yeah, everyone talks about the Jesus and love but they seem to forget about God the Father and his justice which this nation that has turned away from him and into a modern Babylon!

Well, if we get back to the subject of the article it is about the homosexuals disrupting a rally in support of traditional marriage, one man, one woman. The elderly, and the infertile were not there protesting and are not out to get "special" attention. They are not demanding the laws to be changed to accommodate them in any special way. A large portion of the elderly have passed through their "essential" years, fulfilled their "natural" duty, and are to be respected. The infertile in a heterosexual unions are still part of essential heterosexuality and many seek treatment for the medical condition. A heterosexual couple is a symbol of a life producing union whereas a homosexual couple is a symbol of a non-essential union. There is no reason to redefine marriage for non-essential unions.

ok fido, listen, You weren't at this rally you're talking about, I live here, I know what went down. This article doesn't do what happened justice as much as it comes close to outright lieing about it.

You're still avoiding the point of my last comment by "getting back to the subject of the article" You're a coward who atleast knows when to run when cornered. Good job Coward.

Third, The elderly were protesting on both sides. The traditional marriage side, one of about 20-30 people were almost exclusivly older people, on the other side, elders marched in support of their lgbt children. Shows what you know?

I mean I know I've been feeding the troll all this time and that you;re lack of logic would only further to incriminate yourself as a loon, but that hasn't stopped me from responding to you yet, simply because the things you say aren't just "mean opinions that hurt my feelings :C" but are actually factually completely unsound and cowardly, you haven't properly addresssed a good point I've made yet and so I'm going to stop responding until you do, take this as licences to run for the hills while having the last laugh, not that I expected anything that was actually close to being mentally stimulating out of you yet, with your broad emotional appeals and circular loops of logic.

also, why would i care if my sexuality is non-essential or not? Honestly whether you say it is or not, I'm still going to make out passionately with another boy and have deep loving sex with him, maybe if the law allows for it we'll get married and if not we'll say we did and get a civil union or move where we are legal. Hell, maybe we'll go all the way and adopt a child to raise as our son, help him get through college, and become something in this life.

All of that can happen whether its essential or not, it can happen simply for the selfish reason that "Fuck you I want to do it" and you know? Doesnt that just beat all, gosh darn howdy.

I mean, I can get over that, I can accept it, what are you trying to pull implying im upset about something that I honestly dont give a fuck about?